Running Head INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY RANKING SYSTEMS

Methodology Comparison of Three International University Ranking Systems

Methodology Comparison of Three International University Ranking Systems

Introduction

This paper focuses and presents methodologies of three universities ranking system. For this purpose in this paper we will compare and contrast methodology of three international university ranking systems and suggest the ranking system which offers the best analysis of university.

Analysis

Looking closely at following three ranking methodologies, one can not fail to realise the importance they attach to research rather than teaching or service activities as the major ranking factor (Bailey, 2011, 13-26). It is probably because research as the main ranking criterion is very attractive, and it is the one for which data can be easily gathered. All three methodologies claim transparency in the collection of data, and the authors all maintain their methods can be replicated. “Research outputs criteria form 60% of the ARWU score”(Swales, 1994, 101-108). These outputs are number of highly cited researchers in 21 categories (20% of total score), total number of papers indexed in Science Citation Index-Expanded and Social Science Citation Index in 2008 (20% of total score), articles published in Nature and Science (20%) (Swales, 1994). The remaining 40% are made of Alumni who are Nobel prize laureates or fields medal recipients (10%), productivity (10%) and finally, the number of academic staff members who are Fields medal recipients or Nobel Prize laureates excluding literature and peace (20%) (Swales, 1994, 101-108). This last criterion carries a decreasing weight the older the award (Schmitt, 2011, 01-10). “For the latter criterion, the points are awarded to the university the laureate was working at the time of the prize announcement” (Bailey, 2011, 13-26). Anecdotally, Albert Einstein's Nobel prize was fought for, some years back, by two German universities who were the result of a split of the University of Berlin after the second world war. These universities argued over which one should get the ARWU points for Einstein's Nobel Prize. Some critics wondered what influence a Nobel Prize obtained in 1921 can have on the research performance of a university nearly 90 years later. Proponents of ARWU argue that the criteria forming the ranking are readily available on the Internet, and are not subjective (Powell, 1996). ARWU offers, like THE-QS, an overall ranking as well as five rankings focused in the following fields: However, the formula has been criticised. Using Multiple Criteria Decision Model, the same critics demonstrated how one change in the maximum value of a single criterion, with such criterion keeping the same weight in the formula, may completely change the ranking of other universities, thus violating a basic ranking principle, that the performance change of a top university should not affect the performance of other universities (Bailey, 2011).

Another striking example mentioned by Anthony van Raan is about the Free University of Brussels that is sometimes referred to as the Vryje Universiteit Brussel, or as the Université Libre de Bruxelles, but usually indexed as the Free University (of) ...